1975SCMR333 (PLP)
FAZAL HUSSAIN-Petitioner Versus Mst. MUSHARRAF SULTANA-Respondent
| Citation | 1975SCMR333 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Yaqub Ali, Actg. C. J., Anwarul Haq and |
| Parties | FAZAL HUSSAIN-Petitioner Versus Mst. MUSHARRAF SULTANA-Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Supreme Court Rules, 1956, (b) Supreme Court Rules, 1956 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975SCMR333 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Supreme Court Rules, 1956, (b) Supreme Court Rules, 1956 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975SCMR333 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Yaqub Ali, Actg. C. J., Anwarul Haq and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975SCMR333 (PLP) (FAZAL HUSSAIN-Petitioner Versus Mst. MUSHARRAF SULTANA-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 13th February 1975.
- The learned Advocate‑on‑Record as well as the counsel for the petitioner are both absent, even though notice for the hearing of this petition had been sent to the learned Advocate‑on‑Record in accordance with the rules of the Court. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed for non -prosecution.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of this Court made on the 7th of November 1973, in Civil Appeal No. 190 of 1969). O. XXVI-Review-Plea that judgment -of Supreme Court being silent about direction to first appellate Court for disposal of appeal lodged by petitioner needed review-Supreme Court not in any manner having interfered with remand order made by High Court, ground urged for review, held, misconceived. __ O. XXVI-Review- Supreme Court only dealing with maintain ability of suit and saying nothing on merits of case, contention that its judgment is likely to be misconstrued in respondent's favour, held, misconceived.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing : 13th February 1975. ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑This petition seeks review of the judgment of this Court dated the 7th of November 1973, whereby Civil' Appeal No. 190 of 1969 was dismissed. The learned Advocate‑on‑Record as well as the counsel for the petitioner are both absent, even though notice for the hearing of this petition had been sent to the learned Advocate‑on‑Record in accordance with the rules of the Court. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed for non -prosecution. Even on merits, we do not find any substance in this petition. The grounds urged for review are as follows :‑ (a) That the judgment of this Court is silent about the directions to the first appellate Court for the disposal of the appeal lodged by the petitioner in that Court ; and (b) That the judgment dated 7‑11‑1973 is likely to be misconstrued in favour of the respondent as one amounting to a total acceptance of respondent's claim resulting in an executable decree for possession of the land in suit in favour of the respondent. In second appeal, the High Court had merely decided the question whether the sale in favour of the petitioner was pre‑emptible or not in view of the provisions contained in Act XII of 1957 and certain sections of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Having answered the question in favour of pre‑emptibility, the High Court had remanded the appeal to the learned District Judge for a decision on merits. By our judgment dated the 7th of November 1973, we had upheld the view taken by the High Court, with the result that the first appeal lodged by the petitioner has still to be heard by the learned District Judge as remanded by the High Court. The first ground urged for review of our judgment is, therefore, misconceived, as we have not in any manner interfered with the remand order made by the High Court. Similar is the case with the second ground, as we have said nothing on the merits of the pre‑emption suit pending between the parties. We have only dealt with the question of the maintainability of the suit filed by the respondent. Such being the case, there is no basis for the apprehension entertained by the petitioner that the judgment of this Court dated the 7th of November 1973 is likely to be misconstrued as a decision on merit in favour of the respondent. We would accordingly dismiss this petition, making it clear that the first appeal lodged by the petitioner has still to be decided by the learned District Judge concerned in accordance with the remand order made by the High Court. Petition dismissed.